Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2017.

Wikipedia:Economics of information security[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. Per its history, doesn't look like it was created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Leslie Gilliams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to person in an article with absolutely no WP:GNG accreditation met SanAnMan (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what are the notability standards for people in reality competitions? Assuming they don't have a Wikipedia-notable career outside of the show, are they only considered notable if they are the winner? Gilliams would be "third place" in the show's elimination. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in terms of an article, the consensus looks to be that the winners of the most notable reality TV shows are considered notable enough for an article for that reason alone, but a high place finish or particularly notable appearance can contribute to the notability of others. For redirects, if there is any significant biographical information about the person on the article then a redirect is fine I think, if there is just a mention (as here) then I'm less sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf. Leslie doesn't meet the notability requirements to have his own article, but a redirect is appropriate because of his connection not only to MasterChef, of which he was a memorable contestant, but also because he is Melissa Joan Hart's stepfather and the husband of Paula Hart, who doesn't have her own page, but is a notable TV producer and writer. I think it's appropriate that, for users who search him, there is a redirect available that puts him within context of the encyclopedia (per Redirect purpose, subtopic). I swear, I searched for him a couple weeks ago to see what he was doing lately.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He's mentioned 56 times in the article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions within article don't really count for anything, other than that they're a recurring character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm normally not fond of redirecting a personal name to something of this sort, since the targets routinely don't have much to say about the person with that name, but when you're constantly being mentioned in the article, the redirect is useful. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target informs readers about Leslie Gilliams and their affiliation with the TV show. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EDITASAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:EDITASAP

Verifiability[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to verification. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target - formal verification - isn't about verifiability. As no article about the general / main meaning of the term exists (somebody pls create it!) the redirect should be deleted. Fixuture (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN

Wikipedia:EARLY[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:EARLY

American Mental Health Counselors Association[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a major US medical licensure and certification body which should have its own article, clearly being notable. It should not redirect to the general article on the profession, which does not mention the organization (only cites one of its documents as a source). If someone badly wants to link something here in the interim, they can do American [[Mental health counselor|Mental Health Counselors]] Association. However, the vast majority of cases of the appearance of this organization name in our articles are in those on persons who will/should already have links to mental health counselor in their leads and infoboxes as their occupation, so there really is no need to do anything but redlink this organization name until it becomes legitimately blue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:DUP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:DUP

Mirror, mirror on the wall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Magic Mirror (Snow White). (non-admin closure) feminist 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this should target its current target, Snow White or Magic Mirror (Snow White). Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to incorrect RfD template removal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Erde[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

As the closer of the previous discussion, I'd like to bring it back for further review. After closing, I decided to read Betty's article and noticed that "Erde" didn't become part of her name until her late 70's, and her time in the spotlight occurred many decades prior. I filed a requested move to have the article changed to her WP:COMMONNAME, and it passed. My concern is that I highly doubt someone searching "Erde" is looking for Betty Skelton, especially since it's a common word in German, meaning Earth. Erde is a WP:PTM for several articles, such as Freie Erde, Stadion Rote Erde, etc. Therefore, I feel the best option for our readers is to delete this redirect in favor of search results, noting that Betty Skelton will be a prominent result via the redirect Betty Skelton Erde. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning delete, and in case anyone makes the suggestion, I oppose retargeting to earth. I agree with Tavix's rationale, above. FYI, there is a scientific journal called Die Erde, which may worthy of its own article in this encyclopedia (it is published by Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, and it is mentioned in that article). If anyone does create an article for Die Erde, then we may want to make it the target for Erde. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget to Earth per WP:FORRED and the previous discussion. I'm neutral regarding the rest of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since we seem to be heading towards a different consensus than last time, I think it would help to get a few more comments on this case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has no clear referent in English, and none of the PTM hits are what we would put on a DAB page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Maggie (prime minister)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as Maggie (politician) without leaving a redirect, as a more likely search term. She was indubitably the most famous politician ever known as "Maggie". --Nevé–selbert 12:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a useful search term with the disambiguator and the single name has the possibility for confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Margaret Thatcher was extremely widely known as "Maggie" and apparently has been the only Prime Minister to date referred to as such - even if there were others she would be the clear primary topic. In 2014 Maggie De Block was tipped as being a possible future Prime Minster of Belgium by The Telegraph, but she has never held that position (or even Deputy PM) and no more recent sources suggest it likely in the short term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't "(politician)" be a more plausible disambiguator than "(prime minister)", though Thryduulf? There are thousands upon thousands of articles with the former disambiguator and absolutely none for the latter. Sure she wasn't the only politician known as "Maggie", but she qualifies primary topic criteria easily, as you yourself have mentioned.--Nevé–selbert 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both are quite likely search terms, and the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. Personally I would more likely search for "Prime minister" as she is most famous for being PM not just a politician. She is certainly the primary topic for the search term "Maggie (prime minister)" but that does not mean she is necessarily the primary topic for "Maggie (politician)" - I haven't looked. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually whether Thatcher is the primary topic for "Maggie (politician)" is not so clear cut - Maggie de Block, Maggie Hassan and Maggie Barry also feature prominently in my search results, and while Thatcher gets the most hits for me that balance could easily change for someone not located in the UK so I'm tempted to say a dab would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's plausible enough, and redirs are cheap. A British TV show might have a line in it like "not since Maggie was prime minister", and a young American [or whatever] might have only that to go on. "Politician" is a familiar disambiguator to us, but not everyone in the world has memorized our DAB and categorization system.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yowsers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not what "yowsers" mean and I can't find a compelling target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to WP:SURPRISE, of course, User:Tavix :). Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Dance, Dance, Dance (Yowsah, Yowsah, Yowsah). Narky Blert (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ford Gum [1] [2] [3] Yowser Yowser Yowser is a song by Gyratory System but the latter doesn't have a page. And the catchphrase from Inspector Gadget is Wowsers! not Yowsers, so that could be used as a hatnote/see also.. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a Yowza! Animation but that's going quite off track. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just an alternative spelling of "yowza", a slangish exclamation for which we have no article, per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. "Yowzers" (or anything like it) is not mentioned at Ford Gum, so we would not redirect there. They did make some gum products under the brand name "Yowzer" but they don't appear to be notable by themselves. I would redirect this only if the Ford Gum article were updated with material on the various product lines, including that one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just a synonym of "ouch", which would be a good redirect to Pain if it didn't have a lot of alternate meanings. Lacking alternate meanings for "Yowsers", let's keep it as the redirect to the only article for which it's relevant. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cf. what I just said above: "a slangish exclamation ... WP:NOT#DICTIONARY."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the English language, there hundreds (perhaps thousands) of exclamations for pain or surprise. I don't think we should be in the business of creating (or keeping) redirects for such exclamations, unless there are other plausible title matches (see, e.g., Yeehaw). We could potentially disambiguate between the items suggested in this discussion, but given that they involve alternative spellings, I think it's best if we let readers navigate through the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or retarget to a disambiguation page (maybe at Yowza that would include links to Dance, Dance, Dance (Yowsah, Yowsah, Yowsah) (the article thatseems to be the only one containing relevant content about the interjection), the Hugh Pool album and possibly Ford Gum, as well as a "see also" entry for Wowser. – Uanfala (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC) – Uanfala (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SLMSUNG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Perhaps WP:R#DELETE 5 nonsense, anyway, not a plausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Sawol (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This stems from the stylisation of the brandname as "SΛMSUNG", using a lambda instead of an "A" (for all it's faults, Eubot did usefully explain the provenance of its redirects). SΛMSUNG is potentially a useful redirect, but just like heavy metal umlauts, stylisms like this do not get transliterated according to the normal rules. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the Lambda article states, it's a stylization of the A, so SΛMSUNG should stay. But there are no news articles or books that have transliterated this to an L. Similar case for Kia Motors which could be listed as KiΛ but not KIL. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC) updated 17:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- HighKing++ 19:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Samsung Group - 삼성그룹[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, contains both English and foreign title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nobody types English and foreign title. Sawol (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mixed language, and especially mixed script, redirects are very rarely useful. This is not an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary disambiguation to add Korean. You search for either one or the other. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- HighKing++ 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:R from honorific[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Template:R from honorific

Home credit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong forum (again, see January 23's log). If you want to move a page and think it might be controversial, aren't sure if it's a good idea or not, or you need technical help to do so, then see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly retargeted this to the dab, as there was no mention of 'home credit' at the former target, Moneylender. Since there is no main use, the dab page should be at the bare title. I think this is non-controversial, but do check out the edit histories. Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that someone might argue for the earlier Home credit → Moneylender. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_24&oldid=1143883577"